BV 811 .B8
Bush, George C.
Bible baptism never
immersion
BIBLE BAPTISM NEVER
IMMERSION.
BY
Rev. GEO. C.'bUSH.
PHILADELPHIA :
The J as. B. Rodgers Printing Company,
62 and 54 North Sixth Street.
1888.
CopjTight, 1888, by
REV. GEO. C. BUSH.
All Bights Reserved.
COE TENTS.
CHAP. PAGE
I. One baptism— baptism by the Holy Spirit 7
II. The modal acts of this baptism are by pouring, sprink-
ling, descending, falling upon — opposite to immersion. 10
III. Baptize, its meaning 22
IV. Baptizo en — baptize in and baptize with 47
y. Baptizo eis— baptize into 50
YI. Baptismos — baptism 52
VII. Baptisma — baptism 53
VIII. Immersion, why introduced 55
IX. Reasons assumed for immersion 58
X. Posture in baptism 68
XI. The baptism of children 70
XII. Histoi ical evidence 85
XIII. The relation of baptized children to the Church .... 90
XIV. Conclusion 91
IH"TEOr>UOTIOK
The writer of this Book is a believer
in baptism with water. He writes to cou-
firm like believers, and, if possible, to con-
vince others that this is the better way.
The Church is to see eye to eye. She is
to reach this unity by clearer views. It is
hoped this work may contribute something
to this glorious result. The writer would
neither injure nor disband the beloved Chris-
tians calling themselves the Baptist Church.
He has preached for and labored with them.
He seeks only to have them come into bet-
ter views and more charitable practices, has-
tening that day when the people of God
shall be one in communion as they are all
one in spirit.
Geo. C. Bush.
West Chester, Pa,, June 16, 1888.
1*
BAPTISM.
CHAPTER I.
THE ONE BAPTISM.
WHILE baptism with water was prac-
ticed by the Apostles, yet baptism by
the Spirit is oftener mentioned. Dr. Pep-
per, a Baptist writer, says truly. Gospel and
Ordinances are the same thing in two forms.
If all our Baptist friends had held this
truth, Prof. Dagg would not write, " Now
there is a baptism of the Spirit ; if water
baptism is a perpetual ordinance, then there
are two ^ baptisms instead of one." Nor
would Dr. Carson so mistake as to write, " If
there is such a thing as infant baptism, there
must be two baptisms.'^ Infant and adult
7
8 BAPTISM.
baptisms are no more two than American
and English are two. Nor should another
author, R. Ingham, conclude, ^' If this one
baptism was by the Spirit, then Paul was
guilty of an omission, nay, of a misstate-
ment/' The Fathers taught truly (as Je-
rome) " since all have been baptized into
one body, they have received the same
Spirit.^' And Ignatius writes, " There is
one baptism, that which is given into the
death of our Lord/'
The one baptism is the blessed work of
the Holy Spirit baptizing us into Christ and
so into His body the Church. He who
wrote to the Ephesians, there is one baptism,
wrote the same truth more fully to the
Corinthians. By one Spirit are we all bap-
tized into one body, and have all been made
to drink into one Spirit. 1 Cor. 12 : 13. In
Gal. 3 : 27, he writes that this baptism is
into Christ. Rom. 6 : 3 explains it farther^
As many of us as have been baptized into
Christ, have been baptized into His death.
This baptism gives us all the benefits of
THE ONE BAPTISM. 9
Christ's death. It is as if we died, were
buried, and rose again, with sins all forgiven
and forsaken, to walk in newness of life.
This one baptism is effected by the Holy
Ghost. The Greeks said that wine-drinking
baptized, taking an opiate baptized ; so the
Apostle follows Greek usage, saying in con-
nection with baptism, we drink into one
spirit. Many copies leave out the preposi-
tion into. Thus it is exact Greek usage to
say the baptism was by drinking the one
Spirit.
CHAPTER II.
BAPTISM BY THE SPIRIT — ITS MODE. WHAT
ARE THE MODAL ACTS OF THIS BAPTISM?
OUR Baptist friends warn us off from
such an examination, saying (Dr. Car-
son) " it is a figurative expression. Be-
lievers are said to be immersed into the
Spirit, not because there is anything like im-
mersion in the manner of the reception of
the Spirit," — -"' there can be no likeness to it
in the literal baptism."
What is the meaning of such phrases ?
1. The one great baptism which Jesus ef-
fects by His Spirit is only figurative, not
real, like man's baptism.
2. This figurative baptism is a figure that
can have no correspondence to that wliich is
figured — a figure which has no likeness to the
10
BAPTIS3I BY THE SPIRIT. H
reality. What man, in his reason, ever used
such a figure ? How wrong to impute such
a violation of propriety to the Holy Spirit !
3. His writing " immersed into the Spirit ''
contradicts Scripture. We are baptized into
Christ, not into the Spirit. The Spirit is the
baptizing agent, not the receiving element.
Dr. C. errs here as he does about Pentecost
baptism, calling it immersion into emblems
of the Spirit. What idea has an immersion-
ist of immersion into emblems ! This is as
ridiculous as the Doctor's idea of Israel's
baptism in the sea, calling it a " dry dip."
Pentecost baptism was not into emblems of
the Spirit, but baptism by the Spirit.
4. But the gravest error of such writing
is calling the baptism of the Spirit figurative.
If there is anything most positively real,
real in the experience of Christians and es-
sential in the teachings of our Lord, it is
this very baptism of the Spirit. The two
great transactions revealed in Scripture are
1st, the death of Christ to save sinners, and
2d, the application of that death in the
12 BAPTISM.
blood of sprinkling by the Holy Spirit. Let
no man depreciate the chiefest of God's do-
ings.
But despite the warning not to investi-
gate, we examine the modal acts ascribed to
the Spirit. As it is the one baptism of
which water baptism is the symbol, its modal
acts may be our guide.
John said, I baptize with water, Jesus
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Here the contrast is not in the mode, but in
the instrument. Both John and Jesus hap-
tizedy one with water, the other with the
Holy Ghost. Our Lord said, Acts 11 : 16,
John baptized with water, but ye shall be
baptized with the Holy Ghost. Peter says.
Acts 11 : 15, the Holy Ghost fell on Corne-
lius and friends as on us at the beginning.
Causing the Holy Spirit to fall on Cornelius
was the same in mode as that of Pentecost.
This baptism was eflPected by the Spirit's
being poured out. Acts 2: 17. This was
prophesied by Joel. Peter says that proph-
ecy of pouring out the Spirit was that day
BAPTISM BY THE SPIRIT. 13
fulfilled. This baptism was by pouring outy
Acts 10: 45, or falling upon, Acts 10: 44. So
the Samaritans, Acts 8 : 16, 17, received
the Holy "Spirit by his falling upon them.
Ez. 11: 5, says. The Spirit fell uj^on me.
Prophets and Christians received the Spirit
by his falling upon — being poured upon
them. And this is called a baptism by
John and Peter and by our Lord. Are
they competent witnesses ? " No dipping,
no baptism," iis disclaimed by this testi-
mony.
In John 16 : 7, our Lord said, I will
send the Comforter. Acts 2 : 33, records
" having received of the Father the j^romise
of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this
which ye now see and hear. Again the bap-
tism of the Spirit is called an anointing.
Acts 10 : 38. God anointed Jesus with the
Holy Ghost. Pouring oil upon kings
anointed them for their office. Pouring the
Spirit upon Jesus was his anointing. So he
is called The Anointed ; in Greek, Christos ;
in Hebrew, Messiah. Anointing is then the
14 BAPTIS3I.
equivalent of the Spirit's comiDg upon —
baptizing him.
Another word often describes this modal
act. Matt. 3 : 16. Jesus saw the Spirit cZe-
scending like a dove. John 1 : 33.
John the Baptist saw the Spirit de-
scending from heaven. Here the descent of
the Spirit was Christ's baptism by the Spirit,
and the proof that he should baptize with
the Holy Ghost. Here the modal act was
the descent of the Spirit. So common is
this idea of Spiritual baptism, that a Bap-
tist Conference in England lately sent saluta-
tions to one here, " praying the descent of the
baptism of the Spirit upon them.'^ Chris-
tians think alike, pray alike, and send salu-
tations correctly about the " one baptism," of
which water baptism is only the profession.
Acts 10: 47, teaches that Peter was moved to
apply water baptism by seeing the baptism
of the Spirit fall on (v. 44), poured out (v.
45). Did he reason thus, because I have
seen Jesus pour out His Spirit, therefore, I
will immerse them ? How absurd to repre-
BAPTISM BY THE SPIRIT. 15
sent that outpouring of the Spirit by any
ceremony with water if the water was not
poured also ! An immersion could have no
correspondence. It would be a contradic-
tion.
It confirms this view to consider that
purifying in the Old Testament is effected in
the same way. Is. 52 : 15, He shall sprinkle
many nations. Ez. 36 : 25, I wdll sprin-
kle clean water upon you. Hos. 14 : 5, I
will be as the dew. Ps. 72 : 6, He shall
come down like rain.
Now the dear friends, whom we would
fain win to see eye to eye with us, believe
these texts describe the modal acts of the
Spirit. Let baptize with water, have the
same modal acts, and the barrier between
churches is cast down. If baptism with
water is made like that of the Spirit, then
the water should be poured out, caused to
fall on, to sprinkle, to descend as dew, as
rain, as pure water.
This view is confirmed by considering
that the record always is baptism with, not
16 BAPTISM.
in, water. The water is always like the
Spirit — the instrument. Baptisms may be
into Paul, into Moses, into Christ's death.
But there is no record of a baptism into
water. It is vain to say baptize has the
power to carry one under water, when the
constant usage of Scripture makes the bap-
tizing instrument descend. The Greeks also
used baptize where there was no immersion
in water. They said one was baptized with
wine and taxes and tears and questions and
griefs and vice. They understand baptize
to indicate a change, not in one mode, but in
any mode. Chrysostom, the eloquent Greek
preacher, said John was baptized by putting
his hand in baptism on the head of our
Lord. The Fathers said that all waters were
baptized by the baptism of Jesus. They
did not mean immersed, but consecrated. Do
men now know Greek better than the
Greeks 'i Would Scripture describe the one
baptism of the Spirit as a descent, a falling
upon, a pouring out, if a valid baptism was
the exact reverse?
BAPTISM BY THE SPIRIT. I'j
But this position is strengthened by the
representations of our Lord's baptism, in the
most ancient churches. In them all, John
stands pouring water upon Jesus. Some of
these pictures are believed to have been made
in the fourth and fifth centuries. Constan-
tine and the Empress are represented as sit-
ting in a bath, while Eusebius pours the
water of baptism. As the Corinthians ex-
aggerated the supper, so Constantine added
to the rite by getting into a bath. But
what was the essence of his baptism ? Surely
it was the application of water and pronounc-
ing the words of consecration — I baptize
thee.
This position is confirmed also by the
^'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," that
wonderful book compiled, it is supposed,
about A.D. 150. Chapter vii. teaches : " Xow
concerning baptism, so baptize, speaking first
all these things, baptize into the name of
the Father and Son and Holy Spirit,
with livino- water. If thou hast not living:
water, baptize with reference to other water ;
2*
18 BAPTISM.
and if thou art not able with cold, with
warm. If thou hast not both, then pour
upon the head water into the name of
the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
And before the baptism, let the baptizer and
the baptized and some others, if they can,
fast : Bat command the baptized to fast one
or two days before/^ Living water, John 4 :
10, means water not stagnant, a type of
grace.
Here the instrument, water, is given in
the very form used in the New Testament. It
is en hudati, with water, not in, nor into water.
As our Lord baptized with the Spirit, so
John and the twelve and the early Church
baptized ivith water. If the Spirit was poured,
or sprinkled, or shed forth, or descended,
then reason would teach that the other in-
strument, water, be applied in like manner.
If not, then baptize has one meaning in con-
nection with the Spirit and an entirely oppo-
site meaning connected with water. If not,
then things equal to the same things are not
equal to one another. If not, then baptize
BAPTISM BY THE SPIRIT. 19
with the Spirit covers one set of actions,
as giving, pouring, sprinkling ; but with
water, an incongruous set of actions, as form
a procession, march to some water, descend
into it, and immerse the unimmersed part
into the water. Surely there is nothing in
such an ^' operation like pouring out, shed-
ding forth the Holy Spirit. But things equal
to the same tiling must be equal to one an-
other. Dr. Carson and friends have said a
thousand times, baptizo always means the
same thing. Some say dip; others say im-
merse, and others plunge. While they jostle
each other and are all equally positive, yet
they all agree that baptizo ought to have one
consistent meaning. Now, the constant use
of it, in describing the work of the Spirit,
forbids any such modal acts as marching to
the water, dipping in water. The Bible
teaches modal acts utterly opposite. The
believer does not go to the Spirit, does not
descend into the Spirit, is not immersed in
the Spirit. But the Spirit descends, comes,
falls upon, is poured out. Surely baptizo
20 BAPTISM,
cannot cover one set of actions in spiritual
baptism and a perfectly opposite and contra-
dictory set of actions when water is the in-
strument. We hold our Baptist brethren to
their proclamation : " Baptizo has one mean-
ing in all literature — in all administrations/'
And let them say Amen, when we say that
in the "one baptism/' baptizo means the ap-
plication of the Spirit to the candidate, never
the opposite ; and in the profession of spir-
itual baptism, the modal acts must corre-
spond— the w^ater must be applied.
Inferei^ces : —
1. The great body of Christians have ad-
ministered baptism scripturally, when causing
water to descend.
2. " The definite act theory — putting one
under water'' — is at variance with all Scrip-
ture, which uses many words to execute
baptism.
3. The definition of baptism in the Baptist
Confession, '^dipping the whole body under
water," is wrong. There is no dipping under
BAPTISM BY THE SPIRIT. 21
the Spii-it. There should be none under
water.
4. Messrs. Booth and Wayland saying
baptism is " the immersion," are in conflict
with the meaning of baptizo in Scripture.
5. Dr. Conant errs saying " baptizo means
simply put into or under water." Baptisms
by the Spirit are without water. The Greeks
used the word to denote the influence of an
opiate and wine and taxes and debts and
doubts and griefs. What folly to say it
means simply to put under water. The Bible
has not a record of baptism under water.
«^c^i^te^)^
CHAPTER III.
BAPTIZO — ITS MEANING.
THIS word occurs about eighty times in
the New Testament. It describes bap-
tisms effected by the Spirit — by John — by
the Apostles, by Anauias and by Paul.
Seeing the Spirit poured out upon Corne-
lius and friends made Peter say, ^' Who can
forbid water that these should not be baptized
who have received the Holy Ghost as well
as we?" The baptism of the Spirit, then,
was the model and the reason. The baptism
of Saul, when blind and fasting for three
days, was effected by Ananias coming and
saying, ^^ Why tarriest thou ; arise and be
baptized : And, rising up, he was baptized."
Acts 9:18. This is the literal translation, indi-
cating the standing posture in Saul's baptism.
BAPTIZO—ITS MEANING. 23
The baptism of the eunuch was at some
water in the desert- way to Gaza: Acts 8.
But coming to some, he said, " See, water ;
what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Then
both Philip and the eunuch descended to
it, and Philip baptized him. Take bap-
tism to be a profession of the work of the
Spirit, then the water was applied to the
eunuch, not the reverse. He had been read-
ing in the prophecy of Isaiah, among other
things, that Jesus should sprinkle many na-
tions; sprinkling for purification he had seen
at Jerusalem. Did he think of Jesus as our
High Priest, and would he not wish to
profess the work of our Lord by being
sprinkled ? Had he received the truth that
Christ washes us with His own blood : Rev.
1:5; and would he think of any other way
of professing that "blood of sprinkling"
than the way named by Isaiah and practiced
at Jerusalem?
Moreover, consider the inconvenience of
an immersion for one who was at once to
ascend his chariot to ride. And no traveler
24 BAPTISM.
has ever found in that way water enough for
an immersion. There are springs, l)ut no
lake or river. The very exclamation, see
water, indicates a limited quantity. This,
put with the f\ict that he had seen the type
of our high priest sprinkle for purification
and the fact that the eunuch was reading
the prophecy which said Jesus should sprin-
kle, makes it very evident that the eunuch
would expect to be baptized as he saw purifi-
cation effected at Jerusalem.
The baptism of three thousand at Pente-
cost, how was it? The Apostles saw the
multitudes baptized by the Spirit falling on
them. Could they think of professing that
work without causing water to descend ? If
Jesus baptized by pouring out the Spirit, the
apostles should baptize by pouring the water.
Besides, consider the improbability of the
hated disciples being allowed to use the city
reservoirs ! Besides the hatred of the new
sect, how unlikely that a people so fastidious
about purifications should allow three thou-
sand to be plunged into their fountains ?
BAPTIZO—ITS MEANING. 25
If baptism can be executed sometimes by
immersion, yet there were no conditions for
such a baptism in that mountain city under
the control of bitter enemies. But baptism
is executed in pouring out the Spirit and
sending tongues of fire upon the heads of
the disciples. So said John and Jesus. How
improbable that the twelve would have this
work professed by an immersion which had
nothing in common with what w^as promised
and with what they had seen !
When Jesus said, ye shall be baptized with
the Holy Ghost, he meant that very work of
Pentecost. Is baptism then essentially the
act of putting under water ? Joel and John
and Jesus and Peter testify to a baptism wdiere
the Spirit fell and where tongues of fire sat.
Are they not sufficient witnesses ?
1 Cor. 10 : 2 teaches that all Israel was
baptized into Moses, with the cloud and with
the sea. The same preposition en used here
occurs in the promise, he shall baptize you,
en, with the Holy Ghost. The cloud and
the sea were the instruments, not the receiving
3
26 BAPTISM.
element. The cloud stood behind and the
waters of the sea were walls on each side.
Here was a baptism without water — Baptist
authority says ^' a dry dip." But there
was no dip — but a march — the people,
it is thrice recorded, passed through on
dry ground. Ex. 14: 22, 29, and 15: 19.
Poly bins says Alexander's army was baptized
all day marching througli a lake — Israel was
baptized marching all night in a waterless
sea. Both Alexander's army and Israel
would have perished in an immersion. The
miracle of the cloud and the sea moved Israel
to believe the Lord and His servant Moses.
Ex. 13. Here was baptism of parents and
children that preceded faith and induced
faith. And this baptism the Apostle of the
Gentiles commends. Did Paul then know
that baptism meant the definite act of putting
a believer into water ? He records a baptism
without water that made the people believe.
1 John 5 : 8 says the Spirit and the water
and the blood bear witness, and these three
agree in one. The Spirit is shed forth —
BAPTIZO—ITS MEANING. 27
poured out — the blood is sprinkled. Now
how can water iu an immersion agree with
the Spirit or the blood ? Immersion makes
the water contradict the mode of applying
both. Does Jesus shed His blood and pour
out His Spirit ? To agree with that work, then,
water should be applied also. The Greek
Bible used by the Apostles says Nebuchadnez-
zar was baptized with the dew. Origen, one
of the most learned of the Fathers, says
that Elijah's altar was baptized. Neither
Nebuchadnezzar nor the altar were dipped.
Did the seventy who translated the Hebrew
into Greek understand Greek ? Was Origen
behind the times to think and call Elijah's
altar baptized ? How absurd to say " no
immersion, no baptism." The Greek Bible,
the Greek Fathers and the Greek Classics,
with the cloud and the sea, thunder their
negative to the monstrous statement.
Luke 11: 38, Jesus was invited to dine
with a Pharisee who marvelled that before
eating he did not baptize (E baptiza). Mark
7 : 2, has the same charge against the disci-
28 BAPTISM.
pies for eating with hands unwashed. Tra-
dition required that one should cleanse him-
self oft or diligently or up to the elbows.
(See margin, verse 3.) Yea, they eat not
when they come from the market except they
baptize themselves (baptizontai). The Syriac
Bible, for hundreds of years, used rantizon-
tai — sprinkled themselves. That early church
interchanged these words. And Mark 7 : 4.
records further, that the Pharisees held to
baptism (baptismous) of caps and pots and
brazen vessels and tables. Tradition required
the Jews to purify themselves and dishes
before eating. Mark uses baptizo and bap-
tismos to denote that purification. John 13
uses niphso to describe the washing of the
disciples' feet, to denote that they were clean.
John 13 : 10. That washing was not an
immersion. Tables were not immersed for
purification. But Mark says their purifica-
tion was a baptism.
Heb. 9:10, informs us that in the Jewish
service there were divers baptisms. They
could not be divers (Greek diaphorois, di-
BAPTIZO-ITS MEANING. 29
verse, different) if they were a simple immer-
sion. Baptisms were administered in different
ways in the Jewish ceremonies. There is not
an immersion among them, and yet they are
baptisms (baptismos). Heb. 9 specifies bap-
tism by sprinkling blood and water and
ashes — affirming that they purified the flesh
as Christ's blood purges the conscience.
Num. 19 : 16-20, directs how to purify one
defiled from the dead. Take running water
and put it to the ashes of the burnt heifer
and sprinkle the impure for his cleansing.
Josephus, 4 : 4, 6, calls this ceremony bap-
tizing from the dead. Did Josephus under-
stand the Jewish religion ? Is putting run-
ning water to the ashes of an heifer and
sprinkling the unclean an immersion ? Jo-
sephus says it was a baptism. Where wash-
ing the body was part of the ceremony of
purification, still the sprinkling was the most
essential thing. See Num. 19. And their
washings for forty years in the desert were
not and could not be immersions. In the
3*
30 BAPTISM.
whole history of the humau family washing
is usually without immersion.
The New Testament uses about eighty
verbs ending in zo. Like baptizo, they have
many meanings. Katharizo is translated to
purge, to cleanse, to purify ; euaggelizo, by
preach and five other words ; emphanizo, by
show and nineteen other words ; chorizo, by
put and thirteen other words. Why must
baptizo be limited ? Dr. Conant, it is said,
uses about forty words to translate the classic
baptizo. How wrong, then, to affirm that
this word in baptism must mean only an
immersion ! Baptizing from the dead did
not mean an immersion ; baptizing tables
did not mean an immersion ; baptizing Eli-
jah's altar was not an immersion. Divers
baptisms were not all immersions. If Moses
baptized almost all things by sprinkling
blood and ashes and water, what folly to
affect a wisdom superior to Moses, saying,
" No immersion no baptism" ! Bathing in
the crowded camps and in the waterless
desert could not have been an immersion.
BAPTIZO—ITS 3IEAN1NG. 31
Seirax 31 : 30. Being baptized from the
dead and again touching it, what profit is the
(loatron) washing? Here washing equals
baptizing. The most important part of this
purification we have seen was sprinkling.-
Seirax calls it a baptism. Rev. 1 : b, Christ
hath washed us from our sins loith (en, same
form John used) his blood. Eph. 5 : 26,
Christ cleanses the Church with the washing
of water by the w^ord. This (loutron) wash-
ing-baptism is by the word. There is no
immersion in the word.
But the appeal is carried from the court of
Scripture to the usage of the Greeks. To
that court we will go. Look at the defini-
tion of baptizo in twenty-two lexicons. One
of the most common is merge. This is its
meaning w^ien followed by the preposition
iiito. This is the force of the word when
the baptism is into Christ, into Moses, into
Paul, into the Church. It is not a plunge
into Christ, not an immersion in His blood,
not a dip into the Church. If we were
merged in water as we are in Christ, we
32 BAPTISM.
should be devoted to and permanently fixed
in the water. One stream is merged in an-
other when it unites and flows in the same
channel. There is no merging of believers
with the Jordan. One title is merged in
another when it is combined in the one owner.
But immersion has nothing like such merg-
ings of streams and titles. One stream is
not dipped in another; it is united and
merged in the other.
Baptizo is also translated bathe and wash.
These verbs are executed by washing the
body or the feet or the hands. They were
common among the Jews from Sinai to the
Jordan. There are no lakes or rivers in the
whole route. Such a purity for worship,
Heb. X,, requires, " Having your bodies
washed with pure water.'' An immersion,
with the clothes on, is no more washing the
body with pure water than is rolling it in
the street. A real w^ashing this text re-
quires. A dipping is not obedience to it.
Baptizo is also translated from the classics
by immerse. But we see that this meaning
BAPTIZO—ITS MEANING. 33
agrees neither with Jewish washings, nor
traditional purifications, nor with the bap-
tism of the Spirit. While it is one of many
definitions of the word, we see it is entirely
inadequate to answer for baptizo in its reli-
gious uses.
But how unreasonable is it to pitch upon
one meaning out of more than a dozen and
say, they are not in the church of Christ
who will not immerse ? Most dictionaries
give from six to sixteen definitions of bap-
tizo. Who has the authority to limit us to
one meaning ? As a mild specimen of this
dogmatism, take Prof. Curtis, He gives
Passow's definitions *^dip repeatedly, dip un-
der, bathe, steep, wet, pour upon ; 2. dip,
draw water ; 3. N. T., baptize.'' He then
concludes, "Baptizo means dip, sink, im-
merse and nothing else, and the command, to
be baptized is to be immersed, if it is any-
thing." But why does not Professor Curtis
say the command is to sink. Passow says
sink. W^hy not say it is to steep or to wet
or to pour upon ? Passow says baptizo
34 BAPTIS3I.
means any of these. How arbitrary is it to
seize on one and unchurch all who take to
wet or to pour upon as a good meaning !
Liddell and Scott define baptizo, ^' dip in
or under water, sink, bathe, soak in wine,
fall into debt, puzzle with questions ; 2,
draw water or wine ; 3, baptize.'^ Suppose a
sect should take puzzle as the meaning, and
insist that asking questions executed baptism.
Or suppose a sect took soak in wine, what a
nice religion that would make ? Or take
falling into debt as a baptism, how very
pious would many people and churches be
found ? The truth is, baptizo denotes a
change by some controlling influence as wine,
an opiate, tears, water, taxes, griefs, etc. To
be baptized is to come under the influence of
that which baptizes. In ritual purification
it is with water to be devoted to God, The
quantity has no more influence in effecting
a baptism with water than the length of the
sentence has in a baptism by question. A
tax of fifty dollars may baptize one as easily
as a tax of a thousand another A small
BAPTIZO—ITS MEANING. 35
seal may authenticate a deed as well as one
spread over half a sheet. The water is a
sign of spiritual purification, a profession of
the work of the Spirit, of cleansing by the
blood of sprinkling, a token of the '' one
baptism."
Robinson's Dictionary defines baptizo,
^^ dip in, sink, immerse, draw water, wash,
lave, cleanse, middle and passive, voice wash
one's self, i. e., hands or persons, perform ablu-
tion. 2. Baptize, administer baptism." Of
these various meanings, who would not pre-
fer wash to denote purity ? Robinson gives
" dip in " as one meaning. When the Bap-
tist Confession was made, they seized upon
this meaning. But Booth, a Baptist, writes,
"This makes our sentiment and practice
ridiculous." Yet the ridiculous dip is the
practice under the name of immerse.
Deipnon, supper, in Greek, was the prin-
cipal meal. Yet the Holy Spirit calls the
memorial of our Lord's death a supper.
The Corinthians made a feast of it, taking
the word in its widest meaning. They were
36 BAPTISM.
corrected for their literal ity. But how much
like them are those who make the other
sacrament an immersion ? But if this ex-
treme meaning must be taken, as in the
dark ages, let the washing be thorough, as
then, men washing nude men, and women
their companions, before the minister sprin-
kled the candidate, as then was done, saying,
I baptize thee. With them, as among the
Jews, the washing was a preparation for the
more essential sprinkling.
The dictionaries, we see, decide that bapti-
zo has many meanings. We trust it is evi-
dent enough that we are not bound by any
dictionary to execute baptism by any partic-
ular word of the sixteen given as English
equivalents. Robinson's last definition is
baptize. This is the word in the Latin, Italic,
French and English Bibles. Why try to
put any other in its room ? Dr. Carson, the
most able Baptist writer, after saying baptizo
signifies "dip, never expressing anything
but mode,'' added wisely, " I have all the
lexicographers and commentators against
BAPTIZO-ITS 3TEANING. 37
me/' Dictionaries give from six to sixteen
meanings to the word. Baptist authors write
out these meanings and then found their creed
and practice on one of them ; and then affirm,
if any other meaning is allowed, it is such a
willful sin that it excludes you from the
church of God ! The Fathers said there
were as many kinds of baptism as of doc-
trines. The Holy Spirit says there were dif-
fering baptisms in Israel's service. But now
we must believe that the Holy Spirit erred in
saying there were divers baptisms ; diction-
aries erred also, for baptizo cannot be per-
formed except in one way.
We have examined baptizo in dictionaries.
They do not limit the meaning to immerse.
Robinson and others say it means to draw,
water. May we seize on that definition and
make baptism the act of drawing water?
Plow much better his other definition, to
cleanse, to wash ? Then the application of
water harmonizes with the cleansing pro-
fessed. Our Lord washed the disciples' feet
to denote that they were clean. John xiii.
4
38 BAPTISM.
This was not an immersion. Pilate washed
his hands to denote innocence. This was no
immersion. We have Old Testament and
New Testament, we have dictionaries, com-
mentators and churches — we have Greeks,
Romans and Jews all agreeing that baptism
is a ceremonial washing. Why divide the
kingdom for another meaning ?
TAKE A BIBLE READING.
1 Pet. 1 : 2, Elect unto obedience and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.
1 John 1 ; 7, The blood of Jesus Christ
cleanseth us from all sin. Heb. 9 : 14, How
much more shall the blood of Christ purge
your conscience from dead works to serve
the living God ? What does Jesus do ? He
sprinkles His blood — He washes us from our
sins — cleanses from all sin — purges the con-
science. What did John the Baptist call this
work ? Is he good authority ? John called
it a baptism. AYliat did Jesus call the out-
pouringof the Spirit upon the one hundred
and twenty ? Is He a credible witness ?
He called it a baptism. He used baptizo to
BAPTIZO—ITS 3IEANING. 39
describe that work. Is baptism then a dip-
ping and nothing but dipping ? Is the Holy
Ghost in fault in calling purification with
the Spirit and with blood a baptism ? Must
we go blindly against all Scripture and all
learning to enter the fold of Christ ?
Joseph us 18:5, 2, writes of John's bap-
tism, ^' The washing with water would be
acceptable to God, if they made use of it, not
in order to the putting away or the remission
of some sins only, but for the purification of
the body, supposing still that the soul w^as
thoroughly purified by righteousness/' What
did water signify in John's baptisms ? Jo-
sephus says the purification. Josephus, is
there any purification by immersion in the
laws of Moses? None. Josephus, what
was Jewish law for purifying ? Bathing the
body and sprinkling the water of separation ?
Num.19. Josephus did not understand John
to sing,
" Ho, every son and daughter,
Here's the gospel in the water."
Prof Strong's able work on Theology is
40 BAPTISM.
marred by the assertion of such absurd state-
ments as ^^ Christian baptism is the immer-
sion of a believer in water.'' ^^ The mode is
immersion only.'' ''Christ's baptism was
consecration to death." Jesus said it was to
fulfill all righteousness. He therein devoted
himself to His life-work, not to death. True
death was the end of that work. But it is
to contradict the record to say His baptism
was consecration to death.
Prof Strong affirms that '' baptism denot-
ing influence without intus-position (immer-
sion) is a figment of the imagination.''
How can a scholar write such a sentence,
when he knows that the Greeks used baptizo
to denote the influence of wine and debts
and taxes and sleep and vice and opiates.
Is it a figment of the imagination that wine
baptizes without an immersion, or that sleep
stupefies, or an opiate affects one without an
immersion in the stupefying drug ? When
the Greeks for a thousand years used baptizo
to denote a change produced in the mind by
grief and by fears, and by questions and by
BAPTIZO—ITS lUEANlNG. 41
debts and by taxes^ what folly is it to affirm
that baptizo means an immersion ! Prof.
Strong relies for proof upon the partial ad-
mission of some who are not Baptists. Judge
how much such admissions are worth against
the texts and dictionaries before quoted. We
say partial admissions, because many did not
intend to give full sanction to immersion,
but, like the dictionaries, to say that one
meaning of baptizo is to immerse. Prof.
Strong quotes Dean Stanley; yet Dean Stan-
ley told the Baptist brethren, in New York,
that the Church wisely changed the practice
of immersion of the dark ages. Prof. Strong
quotes De Stourdza, saying baptizo means to
plunge. Then he concludes it means nothing
but to immerse. To plunge is not to immerse.
If he plunged candidates, the society for the
prevention of cruelty would soon interfere.
But it seems the great mind of Dr. Strong,
like others, can quote meanings of baptizo
conflicting with immersion and then compla-
cently assume, against all the Greeks, baptizo
means to immerse only. Prof Strong says
4*
42 BAPTISM.
that baptisai without intus- position (immer-
sion) is a figment of the imagination. The
New Testament speaks of the baptism of
tables, of divers baptisms, of the baptism ot
Israel marching on dry ground. Were these
baptisms by immersion? Surely no man,
unless his eyes were filled with water, could
so see it.
The New Testament very often speaks of
the work of the Spirit as a baptism. We
have seen that the modal acts of this baptism
are utterly opposite to immersion. He de-
scends, is poured out, comes as rain and as
dew. Nebuchadnezzar was wet with the dew;
baptized is the word in the Greek Bible used
by our Lord. Prof Strong translates " bap-
tized in water and in the Holy Spirit.^' En^
in the New Testament, is used over three
hundred times before words to denote instru-
mentality.
Christians are evangelized by the Spirit, not
in ; sanctified by, not in; filled with, not in,
led by, not in, justified by, not in. How it
contradicts the usage of Scripture to say,
BAPTIZO—ITS MEANING. 43
baptized in, not 63/ the Spirit? Read 1 Cor.
12: 13, with this idea. " For in one spirit are
we all baptized into one body.'^ Was it in
or by one Spirit, the baptism was effected ?
What strange changes immersion requires?
When the preposition en is used over three
hundred times, translated by, or through, or
with ; yet immersion must make it violate
this usage.
Prof. Strong summons Dr. Coleman as
witness that immersion was the practice of
the early churches. Hear him, page 367 :
'"The Church soon lost the spirituality of her
religion and the simplicity of her ordinances,
in endless strifes about forms and ceremonies.
Perhaps the first of all her departures from
the institutions of Christ and His apostles
was to insist upon immersion as emblematic
of the suffusion of the Holy Spirit and the
only valid mode of administering the ordi-
nance. Certain it is that this soon became
the prevailing mode of baptizing. Other
changes soon followed,'' etc. How many wit-
nesses like this would establish immersion ?
44 BAPTIS3L
That we are not shut up to translate bap-
tizo by immerse, is manifest also from such
facts as these :
1. Some dictionaries do not give immerse
as its meaning. Could this be its most es-
sential meaning, and lexicographers not
know it?
2. Comparing the frequency of its occur-
rence, we see that dictionaries give the pref-
erence to other words. Twenty of them give
immerse four times ; baptize, six times ; per-
form ablutions, eight times ; merge, eight
times ; lave, fourteen times. Immerse can-
not be its most essential meaning, else the
dictionaries would give it oftener. A merg-
ing is not an immersion, else why do they
give merge? To perform ablutions, with
Jews and pagans, differed from an immer-
sion. Else why give this meaning eight
times to immerse four? To lave, the world
over, is oftener performed without than with
a dipping. If baptizo meant essentially im-
merse, why do dictionaries give so many
other definitions ? See also the varied uses
BAPTIZO-ITS 3IEANING. 45
of baptizo. The Gi^eeks said men were bap-
tized with wine, debts, taxes, questions, opi-
ates, sea, millv, fire, sword, spirit, grief, dis-
ease, oil, sins, sleep, vice. \Yhat did they
mean by such baptisms ? Did they mean
that men were immersed in wine and swords
and oil and opiates ? Nay ; but they meant
to indicate the influence from these agents.
So baptism by the Spirit means His influence
upon us. So baptism with water means de-
votion by its ritual use to God. Baptized by
wine, taxes and griefs means affected by their
influence. Baptized into the death of Christ
means coming under the influence of his
death, so as to die unto sin and live unto
righteousness. Baptized into the name of
the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is to be
devoted to the triune Jehovah. The water
of baptism is, then, a symbol of the work of
the Spirit applying the blood that washes us
from our sins. All sects agreed in England
definjng baptism to signify and seal our in-
grafting into Christ and our partaking of the
benefits of the covenant of grace, and our
46 BAPTISM.
engagement to be the Lord's. As our Baptist
brethren make baptizo their stronghold, we
turn on it definitions given by Greek diction-
aries. Suidas, of the tenth century, gives
pluno, to wash, as the essential meaning.
Gases, a member of the Greek Church, in
his large dictionary in two volumes, defines
baptizo by three Latin words : 1, Brecho, to
wet, to bedew, to moisten ; 2, Lavo, to wash,
to bathe ; 3, Antleo, to draw, to pump water.
How true was the confession of Dr. Car-
son, " I have all the lexicographers and
commentators against me.'' Yes, the Greeks
give no aid to the men that assume immerse
as the essential meaning of baptizo. They
do not give immergo, immerse, as even one
of its meanings ! How utterly impossible is
it that immerse is its most essential mean-
ing if a quarto Greek lexicon did not record
it ! How wonderfully wise have men become
that can define Greek better than men that
spoke Greek — better than men that >vrote
the dictionary of their native tongue!
CHAPTER IV.
BAPTIZO EN BAPTIZE IN AND WITH.
BAPTIZO en — with places, means baptize
in, as Enon, Salim, Bethabara, the Jor-
dan, beyond Jordan, and wilderness. These
names of places, except in the river Jordan,
forbid the idea of immersion. And when im-
mersion is eliminated from baptism in so many
places it is reasonable to understand in the
Jordan means also the place, not the manner
of baptism. This is confirmed by the Gospels'
using two other prepositions as well as en.
In Matt. 3 : 13, the record is, "then came
Jesus from Galilee '^ (epi) upon Jordan. Mark
1 : 9 has (eis) at or to Jordan. If we render
it to Jordan, it will respond then to " came,''
preceding. If we read it at or in, then it
will denote the place. These places, except
47
48 BAPTISM.
in the Jordan, exclude immersion. And in
some seasons an immersion is impossible in
the Jordan. A dear Baptist brother was
greatly offended when a traveler told us the
Jordan was only about two feet deep when
he waded it. Why ?
But Baptizo en means '^baptize with/'
when used with the baptizing instrument —
as water, Holy Spirit, cloud and sea. 1 Cor.
10:2, baptized en — with — the cloud and with
the sea. It is the same form as in the gos-
pels. The Bible has no instance of m water.
It is always with water. Some texts omit
the preposition, using only the instrumental
dative (hudati) with water. If immersion in
water was the only right baptism, then the
Scripture is wrong in using the instrumental
dative ! At least, we ought to find one record
of such a baptism, if such only is valid.
Bible baptisms are with the Spirit poured
out, or with water to profess it, or with the
sea on either hand, or with the cloud in the
rear while the feet of Israel marched on dry
BAPTIZO EN— IN AND WITH.
49
ground. How perfectly and utterly we re-
verse the very letter of Scripture if we affirm
that these baptisms were " immersions in or
under water."
CHAPTER V.
BAPTIZO EIS — BAPTIZE INTO.
THESE words mark the result of baptism.
Baptized into Christ's death means that
we share the benefits of that death. Bap-
tized into Christ's body means that we are
made members of His body. Gal. 3 : 27,
the baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
They are in Him, having His righteousness.
Baptized into forgiveness means the state of
forgiveness. Baptized into the remission of
sins and into repentance and into Paul and
into Moses are expressions of the state of
the baptized towards Moses and Paul and
repentance.
The Bible has no record of baptized into
water. Eis hudor is not found in the Bible.
But our immersion brethren in thought and
60
BAPTIZO EIS— BAPTIZE INTO. 51
intention and in practice always insert into
water. Is it not an unwarrantable license to
add into water when Scripture never uses the
words? If immersion into water was the
sine qua non of baptism, surely we should
have had one example. Our brethren disa-
gree about the meaning of the prepositions
used with baptizo as well as about the verb
itself. Some says eis means in ; some, into ;
others, unto ; others, in reference to. While
they contend with each other for diverse
meanings for the verb and for the preposi-
tions, yet they agree that one must be covered
to the last hair with water in order to a valid
baptism. And all this without an instance
of it in the diverse baptisms of Scripture.
Baptism into Christ^s death, that great work
of the Holy Ghost, is belittled to make it
a profession of his death and absurdly the
candidate is assured that his submission re-
presents Christ on the cross !
CHAPTER VI.
BAPTISMOS.
THIS word is used four times. In Mark
7 : it means the ceremonial purifica-
tion of pots, cups and tables. In Heb. 6 :
2, it is used with doctrine, as if doctrine
qualified baptisms, just as repentance did
in John's ministry. The doctrines mentioned
just before were repentance and faith. Heb.
9 : 10 means ritual purifications in Jewish
service. Among these ablutions it was re-
quired that one bathe his body, wash his
garments and be sprinkled with the water of
separation. Nu. 19, But there is no im-
mersion in Judaism. Baptismos gives no
support to the theory, — no dipping, no bap-
tism.
52
CHAPTER VII.
BAPTISMA.
THIS word is used twenty-two times. It
describes the ministry of John, as when
the Pharisees came to John's baptism. They
came to more than a dipping. It also de-
scribes the suffering of our Lord. His
agony in Gethsemane — His death on Calvary
were infinitely more than an immersion in
water. Baptisma as John's ministry and bap-
tisma as Christ's sufferings were very different
things. Is baptisma then a covering with
water ? The Fathers used this word to de-
scribe martyrdom. They often coveted
this baptism. Did they mean an immersion
that should strangle them ? Yet no idea
was more common with these Greek Fathers
than that their blood in martyrdom baptized
them. A baptisma of blood was where blood
6* 53
54 BAPTISM.
was shed in any way. Baptisma into the
death of Christ, Rom. 6 : 4, was not a bap-
tism when Christ died, but a union with
Him in the merits of His death now effected
by the Holy Spirit. There is no record of
baptisma in or into water. And the opera-
tion of the Spirit baptizing us into Christ
has in it nothing like an immersion. There
is no correspondence in time, state or man-
ner between the Spirit's work and a dipping.
Every Greek noun, preposition and verb re-
fuses to connect baptism with immersion.
They all utterly repudiate any communion
with the dipping theory.
CHAPTER VIII.
IMMEKSION. WHY INTRODUCED?
PURIFICATION under the Old Testa-
ment was usually effected by sprinkling
ashes, water or blood. Priests were purified
by washing hands and feet at the door of
the tabernacle. Jesus said of His washing
Peter's feet, If I wash thee not thou hast
no part with me. Peter then cried out. Not
my feet only, but my hands and my head.
He reasoned, If some washing is good, then
let me have more. Baptists are not followers
of John, but of Peter. They practice bap-
tism into water — John practiced baptism
with water. They use bapto eis, he used
baptizo en. The Fathers^ writings show
that even when they used immersion, in
some cases they baptized the sick upon their
55
56 BAPTISM.
beds. They held that all waters baptized.
They fell into Peter's error in practice, yet
they never taught that the mode of ap-
plying the water was essential. Some added
exorcism and anointing, and trine immer-
sion, one for each person of the Trinity.
What did they mean by baptize? They
meant bringing a person into a holy state by
the water and Spirit coacting upon the per-
son. They thought w^ashing the body would
absorb more virtue. Therefore, they made
not an immersion only, but a real washing.
For many years the Baptists did not im-
merse. They assert that the English Bap-
tists made the change in 1641. Till then
this sect practiced baptism as did other
churches. They seem to have introduced
immersion one hundred years after their
origin in Germany, to separate their chuT'ch
from otliers w^ith a wider mark of distinc-
tion. Yet the most of them in England to
this day do not make so much of immersion,
do not unchurch all who prefer another of
sixteen definitions of baptize rather than im-
IM3IERSI0N—WHY INTRODUCED? 57
merse. But in this country it is dip, or you
cannot be a member of the church of God.
Baptized into Moses meant a new disposition
in Israel to receive and obey Moses. It was
not true that all were immersed in Moses.
Nor were the Corinthians immersed or buried
or plunged into Paul. Baptized into Christ's
body means our union with, our articulation
into His church. The virtue of such bap-
tisms is not in the size of Paul or Moses or
the church ; but in the new disposition — the
new creation by the Spirit. Applying the
Baptist immersion, what a perversion of
truth to say, All Israel was plunged, dipped,
immersed into Moses ! All Christians are
by the Spirit baptized into Christ so as to be
one in Him. What a caricature of the
truth is it to say they are dipped into
Christ.
CHAPTER IX.
EEASONS FOR IMMERSION.
OUR brethren, of course, have some texts
which they use to justify their theory.
One is that John baptized in Jordan. Why
this record, say they, if it was not an im=
mersion ? The answer has been given be-
fore. In Jordan designates the place. No
Baptist reasons that John immersed in sand
from the record that John baptized in the
wilderness, nor that lie dipped converts in the
dust because it is written, John baptized in
Bethabara. John baptized in the Jordan, in the
river Jordan, not in water but ivith water.
Brother Curtis has found in Mark 1 : 9,
baptized and eis (into, or to, or at) in the
same verse. But the eis is not connected
with water. He has translated eis on the
58
REASONS FOR UUIERSION. 59
preceding page at. But on this page he
seizes upon into as the meaning. We are
sorry to take away his comfort. But if eis
means at on one page, why may it not on
the other ? Brother Curtis not only contra-
dicts himself, but makes Matt. 3:13 using
epi at, or upon, conflict with Mark. When
Matthew says Jesus came from Galilee
upon the Jordan, he means the same as
Mark saying he came from Galilee and was
baptized by John, eis Jordan. Moreover,
Prof. Curtis' construction conflicts with all
the many representations in ancient churches
of our Lord's baptism. He stood at or in
Jordan w^hile John poured the baptizing
water.
2. A second Baptist reason for immersion is
Col. 2 : 12, buried with him in Baptism. It
reconciles many to the sad experience of im-
mersion that they not only imitate Christ's
baptism, but that they are buried loith Him,
so come nearer to Him in baptism. But
Christ is in heaven, not in mill-ponds. He
was buried over eighteen hundred years ago
60 BAPTISM.
— we cannot be buried bodily with him ;
moreover, his burial was in a room hewn out
of a rock into which Joseph carried his body
and rolled a great stone against the door.
There is nothing in immersion like the burial
of Jesus. Moreover, a brief statement is
always to be interpreted by one more full.
Rom. 6 : 3 tells us we are baptized into
Christ's death ; verse 4, buried with him by
baptism into death ; verse 5, planted with
him ; verse 6, our old man crucified with him ;
verse 8, died with Christ. Can any of these
things be affirmed of water baptism?
Neither does Col. 2 : 12 teach anything
about water baptism. The Apostle says we
are complete in Christ, circumcised in His
circumcision, buried with Him in ^^ the bap-
tism,''raised up in Him, quickened with Him,
all trespasses forgiven. Are these attributes
of water baptism, even if in an ocean ?
Nay, but they are attributes of " the " one
baptism. " JTte'^ is in the Greek. If it
had been translated it might have saved
many from error. Col. 2 teaches us we have
REASONS FOR IMMERSION. 61
all in Christ by faith, which is the operation
of God. How absurd, then, is it to say we
are buried by dipping and are raised up by
faith ! But few would ever get out of an
immersion if this was the way of escape.
Buried with Christ in " the baptism '' has no
more water in it than had baptizing the one
hundred and twenty with tongues of fire.
The baptism that buries us with Christ is the
same that crucifies us and raises us up and
makes us complete in Him. Water has no-
thing to do with this baptism but to profess
it.
As great dependence is placed on Rom. 6 :
4, we examine the text more carefully. We
are buried with Him by baptism into death.
What death ? Ans., v. 3, Christ's death.
What buries us ? Ans. Our baptism — by
baptism. When did Christ die? Ans.
Over eighteen hundred years ago. Can we
be buried bodily with Him in time ? Cer-
tainly not. Can we be placed bodily in
Joseph's tomb ? Certainly not. How then
are we buried with Him ? In the sense that
6
62 BAPTISM.
He died and was buried and rose for us.
What baptizes us into his death ? The Holy
Spirit's work. AVho administers this baptism ?
Our ascended Saviour. How does He bap-
tize? By sending, pouring out the Spirit.
What does the Spirit do for us ? He bap-
tizes, merges into Christ. What is the bene-
fit of this baptism? It makes us complete
in Christ ? Can water baptism effect such a
result ? Never. What relation has water
baptism to this spiritual work ? It can only
symbolize and profess it. Can we be buried
in water with Christ ? Nay, He is in
heaven. Can we die on the cross with
Jesus? There was none with Him. Can we
rise bodily out of water with Him ? This is
impossible. What is meant by dying with
Him, being dead with Him, crucified with
Him, complete in Him, buried with Him ? It
means our perfect union with Him in His suf-
ferings for us, so they were as good to us as
our dying under the penalty and rising to a
new life. What buries us with Christ? The
baptism by the Holy Spirit. Ought water
REASONS FOR UHIERSION. 63
baptism to represent Christ's burial ? Nay.
Of all things His burial by Joseph has no
special significance except to assure us of the
reality of His death. Ought baptism to
rejyresent His death ? Nay. The supper is
to show forth His death.
3. Another Baptist reason for immersion
is 1 Pet. 3: 21. The like figure whereunto
even baptism doth now save us. Noah is
figured to have been immersed in the flood
and drawn out, so Christians now immersed
in water are drawn out saved. But Peter
says our baptism is not a washing away of
the filth of the flesh, but it is the state of the
conscience through the resurrection of Jesus
Christ. Peter connects this saving work
w^ith the finished redemption of our Lord.
Moreover, Noah was not immersed. The
antediluvians only were immersed, and our
brethren themselves own that the baptism of
the Spirit alone can save. Peter, then, like
Paul, was not speaking of a water baptism
that cannot save, but of the baptism of the
Spirit.
64 BAPTISM.
4. A fourth Baptist reason is found in
1 Cor. 10 : 2. All Israel was baptized into
Moses with the cloud and with the sea. The
cloud stood between them and the Egyptians,
yet baptized them. The sea, in walis miles
apart, enclosed them, yet baptized them, so
cloud and sea made them belkive the Lord
and his servant Moses. Ex. 14 : 31. Dr.
Conant happily defines this as a baptism
bringing into a new state of life and experi-
ence. This was the baptism of Israel going
through the sea on dry ground. The Egypt-
ians were immersed, not baptized. Israel was
not immersed, but baptized with the cloud
and sea. Apply Dr. Conant's idea of Israel's
baptism to Rom. 6:4. It brings into a new
state of life. It unites us with Christ.
5. A fifth Baptist reason for immersion is
the baptism of the Eunuch. He had been to
Jerusalem to worship ; he was reading Isai-
ah's prophecy of Christ. Philip asked him
if he understood it. Being invited, he ascended
the chariot and explained Isaiah. The Eunuch
had seen the priests purify the people by
EEASOXS FOE UUIERSION. 65
sprinkling, had read the prophecy that said
Christ should sprinkle many nations ; dis-
covering water, he said, See, water; what
doth hinder me from being bajitized ? Upon
his confessing Christ, " they both descended
to the water both Philip and the Eunuch,
and he baptized him.'' These words marked
are a literal rendering of the Greek. There
is no immersion recorded ; there was no pre-
pai-ation of garments for it ; there has never
been found in that desert water enough for
an immersion. How unlikely there was any ?
He had seen priests sprinkle ashes, blood,
incense and water ; he was reading the proph-
ecy of Christ sprinkling many nations.
How naturally, then, he would expect to
profess purification in the way he had seen
and read of its being done.
6. A sixth reason given for immersion is
John 3 : 23. Much ivater. Why much water
if it were not for immersion ? The answer is
found in the preceding verse recording that
Jesus and the crowds attending his ministry
were also in the same region. He was now
6*
66 BAPTISM.
making more disciples than John, John (4 :
1.) Much water would be needed for the two
great congregations. Enon in Hebrew means
fountains. It is the plural of en — fountain.
Jesus and John could assemble multitudes in
that part of Judea, because there was much
water in these fountains. The learned Am-
brose says there were twelve fountains and
seventy palm-trees. At Elim, Israel came
to twelve fountains. Ex. 15 : 27. Our im-
mersion brethren suppose that these fountains
may have poured their water into reservoirs
sufficient for immersion. John 3 : 23 can
serve immersion, then, only by improbable
guess-work. 1, that Baptizo means here not
any of its many meanings except immerse ;
2, that these fountains drained into a reser-
voir ; and 3, that the mention of these many
springs was for immersion and not for the
drinking and cooking purposes of the great
multitude.
7. A seventh reason given for immersion
is John 3 : 5 — born of water. The other
part of the verse is born of the Spirit. AYe
EEASONS FOR IMMERSION. 67
have seen that the Spirit works by coming
upon, descending, pouring upon. If this is
giving a new creation — a birth into the king-
dom— then birth by water should be pro-
fessed by pouring out, causing to descend.
Nicodemus was an inquiring Jew. He found
that outward ordinances had not satisfied ;
he came to ask what farther was necessary.
Jesus guides him at once to a purification by
the Spirit. It was not yet time to say, all
Mosaic observances are ended. But it was
time to say that a man must have more than
water purification ; he must have with it a
spiritual purification — so be born of water
not only, but of the Spirit. There was no
immersion for purification as there is no im-
mersion into the Spirit,
CHAPTER X.
POSTURE IN BAPTISM.
ALL ancient pictures known represent
Jesus as standing when baptized by
John. When he received the baptism of the
Spirit he was going up from Jordan. The
Spirit came on Him while He was walking.
Classic Greeks speak of armies baptized all
day while niarching. The Spirit baptized
the one hundred and twenty at Pentecost
when they were sitting ; Saul was baptized
standing.
Now shall we seize on one position, and
say baptism must be administered to one
standing? That would make us like some
seizing upon one meaning of baptize. What
folly to legislate that in baptism the baptized
must stand ! Did not Saul stand ? Does not
POSTURE IN BAPTIS3L 69
Luke use the word seventy-nine times, so we
can be sure of our posture ? Very true —
true, this word forbids an immersion. But
yet there was a baptism of the Spirit filling
the disciples, and with tongues of fire rest-
ing upon them where they were sitting.
Even when the error had crept in that water
and Spirit must co-work, yet they baptized
the sick upon their couches. But the theory
" no dipping no baptism " was not true in
any of these baptisms. There is no record
of a baptism in lying down. Sitting, stand-
ing or walking are Bible postures.
CHAPTER XI.
THE BAPTISM OF CHILDREN.
OUR Baptist brethren deny that children
have any such right to ordinances in the
New as they had in the Old Testament —
that the door of the gospel church breaks all
family relations — that we enter the Church
without wife or child. And all because it is
written '^ he that believeth and is baptized.^'
They insist that faith in the candidate must
precede baptism, because in this one verse
faith is mentioned first.
But take the great Commission, Matt. 28,
translate it literally. Going disciple all na-
tions, baptizing them into the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost, teaching them to observe. Here bajD-
tizing is put before teaching. Must we bap-
70
THE BAPTIS3I OF CHILDREN. 71
tize before we teach ? 1 Cor. 6 : 11, Ye are
washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified. If
the order of words is an authority, first bap-
tism, then sanctification, then justification.
Is this the divinely appointed order ? Here
and in the great Commission our brethren
agree with us that the order is not authori-
tative. AYhy then rule the children out of
the kingdom by a catch at words ? Better
take the order baptize, teach, as in Mat. 28,
or wash, sanctify, in PauFs epistle to Corinth.
Here are two texts putting baptize and wash
before teach. Then the order of words is
two to one in the children's favor.
Our brethren assume that the New Testa-
ment made such a change in the administra-
tion of God's grace, that the church is a new
institution and the conditions of membership
are changed. But the New Testament and
Old alike teach that the virtue of an ordi-
nance is the state of the heart. — Circumcis-
ion denoted the heart's devotion. Why can-
not the same principle be applied to the bap-
tism of children? While God commanded
72 BAPTISM.
the heart to be circumcised, yet he required
circumcision of the flesh on the eighth day.
When the Old Testament calls Israel my
people, a hundred times — and my chosen —
my beloved and saints — how wrong to deny
that Israel was a church !
Besides, the New Testament addresses com-
mands to parents and children as equally in
the church. Eph. 6 : 4, Bring up your
children en, not eis, in, not into the nurture
and admonition of the Lord. Lu. 18: 16,
Of such is the kingdom of heaven, ^. e., the
kingdom belongs to them. Yet must they
be excluded from the very badge of member-
ship? Yea, denied any membership? The effort
is made to neutralize this text by saying the
kingdom belongs to the childlike. See the
wrong of this interpretation. Brephos is
the word that described the infant Saviour in
the manger. The plural is br^epha. When
parents brought such to Jesus [breplia is the
word) and the twelve resisted them, Jesus
said, suffer the little children to come unto
me and forbid them not. The Apostles
THE BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 73
thought baby-blessing wrong. But the Mas-
ter corrected! their carnal reasoning. He
imparts spiritual blessings to babes, and He
says the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.
Sad if it is now unlawful to bring them to
Jesus. Jesus baptized babes with His Spirit.
Is it wrong to profess that spiritual work ?
Again consider children were in the cov-
enant of works and fell in Adam. Was the
covenant to work only for their condemna-
tion ? Is not grace to abound to them even
as the evil of the fall has afflicted them ?
Has the covenant principle no application
to them but for ruin ? If death reigned by
the sin of one, shall not grace reign through
our Lord Jesus Christ? Is not this the
doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Rom. 5 ? Is
it eternal law that the iniquity of fathers can
be visited on children and yet there is no
counter-principle of visiting the good of par-
ents?
Also consider that God has always included;
children in covenant-dealing. As with Adam
so with Noah, Abraham and David. When
7
74 BAPTISM,
He covenanted with Israel it was with the
men not only, but with their wives and little
ones. Have the principles of God's govern-
ment so changed that He cannot embrace
children in covenant privileges ? The chil-
dren have rights in all other governments.
Have they been ruled out of the best govern-
ment? What Stephen called the church in
the wilderness had blessings for them in the
two sacraments, Circumcision and the Pass-
over. Has the Gospel in its fuller grace
nothing for the family ? Has the Head of
the church repealed that law which for four
thousand years brought unspeakable blessings
to children ? Where is the repeal ? Was it
by the mouth of Peter, saying the promise
is to you and to your children ? Did He
annul that principle when Paul said to the
jailer, believe on the Lord Jesus and thou
shalt be saved and thy house ?
If that principle was repealed, why is
there not only no record of it, but no com-
plaint about it? Jewish converts \\ere very
slow to give up ceremonial observances.
THE BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 75
But did they give up all the rights of their
children without a whisper of complaint ?
How impossible !
Consider also that there is no such break
between the Old and New Church as our
brethren suppose. The New Church has the
same scriptures — the same promises — is built
not only upon apostles, but upon prophets — is
grafted into and partakes of the fatness of
the good olive tree, Rom. 11. While Jews
and proselytes brought their families with
them into the kingdom, yet if one parent
remained an idolater the children were
excluded. Is this the law of the New Tes-
tament? Nay. It is more comprehensive
than Judaism. 1 Cor. 7 : 14, The children
are clean, and so suitable to be offered to
God when but one parent is a believer.
In the days of the prophets, God said,
" Thou hast taken thy sons and thy daugh-
ters whom thou hast borne unto me, and
these hast thou sacrificed ; . . . thou hast
slain my children.'^ Ez. 16: 20, 21. Are not
children born unto God now as well as then?
76 BAPTISM.
Was it wrong then to turn them over to idols
and yet not wrong now to deny that they
belong to God ?
Consider also that all the historic churches,
Greek, Roman, Armenian, Coptic, baptize
their children. Some retain also circumcision.
How came infant baptism into them all,
unless from the teaching of Apostles. Origen
says they received it from the Apostles ? The
Council of Carthage was asked to decide if
baptism, like circumcision, must be on the
eighth day. Did the Church understand
that infants' rights had been abolished?
They decided that baptism need not be on
the eighth day, but at an early period. When
Pelagius was teaching that infants had no
original sin, and was accused then of denying
baptism to them, he said, not only he did not,
but that he had not heard of the most im-
pious heretic that denied infant baptism.
Pelagius was born in England, traveled over
Europe, Africa and Palestine. If there had
been a sect in Christendom refusing to bap-
tize children, he would have found it. But
THE BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 77
our brethren try to neutralize this historical
argument. They find a Tertullian wiio ad-
vises a delay of baptism in the case of chil-
dren and young people, that baptism might
wash away as many sins as possible.
The error then was rife that water co-
acted with the Spirit in cleansing the soul.
Tertullian advised delay, to have the greatest
benefit in sweeping away accumulated sins.
But the very advice to delay proves the ex-
istence of the rite. If there was no such
practice, would a sane man ask that it be
postponed ? And when his reason for it was
a mere superstition that baptism effaced guilt,
how absurd to make such advice weigh more
against baptism than the writings of all the
Fathers for it.
Consider the practice of the Apostle of the
Gentiles. When Lydia's heart was opened
to the gospel, she was baptized and her fam-
ily. There is no record of any faith but
hers. After baptism, she grounded her plea
not upon the family's faith, but she said, If
ye have judged me to be faithful (Gr., pistane,
7*
78 BAPTISM.
believing), abide in my liouse. Most Baptist
-writers cite the jailer's family as believing;
but any Greek scholar will tell them that
Acts IG : 34 ascribes faith to the jailer only.
Believing in God, he rejoiced with all his
house, is the literal rendering. The Apostle
had promised, " believe on the Lord Jesus,
and thou shalt be saved and thy family.^'
Acts 16 : 34 records that he did believe. And
when any Greek scholar says that this text
ascribes faith to the family also, you moy
know he misrepresents the record. Believ-
ing is a participle nominative singular,
agreeing with jailer.
1 Cor. 1 : 16 teaches that Paul baptized
the family of Stephanas ; but did not remem-
ber baptizing any other family, because Christ
sent him not so much to baptize as to evan-
gelize. Stephanas was a disciple present
with Paul when he wrote to the Corinthians.
It is certain from 1 Cor. 16 : 15 he was a be-
liever. Paul baptized not Stephanas, but his
family. And when he adds, after oikon of
Stephanas, tina allon, it shows how customary
THE BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 79
was family baptism. He baptized his fam-
ily, but did not recall any other family. He
thanked God that he baptized only Crispus
and Gains, lest people should say he had
baptized them into his own name. Did this
imply that baptism was withdrawn from
adults? He baptized two adults and one
family, and did not remember a second at
Corinth. If adult baptism is continued, how
certain, then, is family baptism. As in the
Old, so in the New Covenant, parents took
their families.
See, Paul salutes families, commends Noah's
faith in building an ark to save his family.
Peter says the like figure saves us. But how
it grates upon that likeness to say the family
is excluded !
See Peter's work first opening the Church
to the Gentiles. The angel promised Corne-
lius, Peter shall speak words to thee by which
thou shalt be saved and thy family. Acts 11 :
14. And Peter seeing the Spirit fall upon
Cornelius and family and friends, arranged
that they should be baptized. Acts 10 : 44, 48.
80 BAPTISM.
Did Peter do wrong in baptizing the family
with Cornelius and kinsmen? Did the angel
misunderstand the constitution of the Church?
Did he promise too much, saying Peter shall
tell thee words by which thy family shall be
saved? How evident is it that neither the
apostles nor angels yet knew that children
were turned out of the Church of God !
Matt. 18: 5 commends receiving little
children as receiving Christ. Are they then
unfit to receive the outward sign that they
belong to him ? Was there ever a shepherd
who thought it a profanation to put his mark
upon his lambs? Has Jesus recalled the
command, "feed my lambs?''
Gal. 3 teaches that the blessins: of Abra-
ham has come on the Gentiles,that to Abraham
and his seed were the promises made, that if
we be Christ's, we are Abraham's seed and
heirs according to the promise — that the law
four hundred and thirty years after the cov-
enant cannot disannul it. Does this change,
then, the foundation-principle of the Church ?
Has the Gospel taken away what the law
THE BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. §1
could not do? Paul taught the opposite.
In all God's covenants parents acted for their
offspring. Parents could lay up iniquity for
their children. Job 21 : 19. Children from
the days of Abel to Zacharias could suffer for
the parents' sins, lie in exile for them, and
confess them. Dan. 9. But is there nothing
in contrast with this evil ? — " His blood be
on us and on our children," was the impre-
cation. Israel is still suffering for it. Can
the curse run through a thousand generations,
while " the promise " ends with parents ?
Nay, nay, nay. This principle underlies all
governments. It is in the very organization
of society. It was on this principle that
John was circumcised. Lev. 1 : 59, and the
infant Jesus was taken to the temple and
presented to the Lord. Luke 2 : 22. How
impossible, then, for this principle to be in-
operative now !
Again and again we are assured the seed
of the righteous is blessed ; that God loves chil-
dren for their parents' sake ; that He claims
that, as the souls of parents, so the souls of
32 BAPTISM.
children are His. Ez. 18 : 4. The objection
that the babe is unconscious, has no more
weight against infant baptism than it has
against circumcision, than it had against
Christ's blessing infants, than it had against
presenting the infant Saviour to the Lord.
If the sign of devotion was good from Abra-
ham to John the Baptist, is it not as good
to Gentiles, who, as stones, have been raise
up as spiritual children unto Abraham ? If
Abraham's faith brought blessings to his race
— if David's secured favors for his seed — if
parents' faith in Egypt saved the first born —
if theSyrophenician's brought health to her
daughter — if Jairus' brought life to his dead
child, and if the centurion's faith brought
healing to his slave, cannot faith now bring
anything to children ? Are such narratives
misleading and delusive? Do they not con-
firm the command, ^^ disciple," baptizing and
teaching all nations? Yea, when our Lord
has assembled His people at the last, He will
apply this principle, saying to the Father,
"behold, I and the children which God
hath given me." Heb. 2 : 13.
THE BAPTISM OF CHILDREN. 83
Our brethren object, there is no command.
Answer: — 1. There is no command to be
called Baptist, none to publish a Baptist
Bible, none to immerse. There is no com-
mand to pray in families, none to observe
the first day of the week, none for women to
commune. But all God's covenant dealings
imply tliis filial relation, all governments
recognize it, all the Apostles taught it, and
all their churches practice it to this day.
2. Let children first believe. Answer : —
The brepha infants were not required first to
believe ; the first born in Egypt had not
first to believe ; the infant Jesus had not first
to believe before circumcision ; the infant
Jew now in exile has not first to believe be-
fore it suifers ; the Syrophenician's daughter
had not first to believe, nor had Jairus' dead
child first to believe. Has not a parent's
faith as much power now ? Can Dr. An-
derson and Prof. Curtis write of the Jailer's
family ^^ it is explicitly affirmed that they
were all believers ? " Had those brethren
read their Greek Testament they would find
84
BAPTISM.
believing agreeing with Jailer only. So the
Jailer and Lydia and Cornelias and Ste-
phanas by faith, like Noah, saved their fami-
lies. Were these families without children?
CHAPTER XII.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.
THE history of the Apostles in the Acts
extends to 63 a.d. One has counted
forty-eight names of converts in the New
Testament. The baptism of seven of them
is recorded, and with them four famihes. If
this ratio four to seven is applied to the forty-
eight, it gives twenty-seven families baptized.
But the ratio may have been even more. Not
only did the four Crispus, Lydia, Cornelius
and the Jailer, accept infant baptism, but the
Eunuch is reported to have returned home,
established a Christian Church, which to this
day baptizes infants. Some followers of Simon
Magus also baptized their children. Saul,
another of the seven, we find baptized
children. So the proportion of four to
seven may be six to seven.
S 85
SQ ' BAPTISM.
But with four to seven for the ratio, in
one hundred thousand converts there would
have been fifty-seven thousand families.
Here is one of the sources of the rapid
growth of the early church. Parents took
their children with them into the kingdom,
and trained them for Christ. May not loose
notions about children's obligations now
hinder the growth of the Church ? Are not
multitudes justifying their neglect of wor-
ship by this evil theory that parent's faith
and example cannot obligate children ?
President Dwight has collected the follow-
ing testimony from the Fathers. "Was he
able to weigh such evidence ?
1. Justin Martyr writes of persons made
disciples of Christ from their infancy. That
infancy was from the year 70 A.D., so in the
days- of the Apostles.
2. Irenseus was a disciple of Polycarp,
John's convert. He writes of the great
pleasure he had in hearing Polycarp repeat
the teachings of our Lord as John taught
him. He writes,, Christ came "to save
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 87
infants and little ones and children and
youths and elder persons who are born
again/' By born again, President D wight
says Irenseus " means baptized as he else-
where shows/' Here was a witness only a
few years after John.
3. Origen, born 184. The Church hath
received the tradition from the Apostles that
baptism ought to be administered to infants.
4. Cyprian writes of the decision of sixty-
six ministers in council at Carthage, " that
no infant is to be prohibited from the benefit
of baptism, although but just born.'' The
question asked of the Council was, ought
baptism be on the eighth day ?
5. Gregory Nazianzen exhorts parents to
offer their children to God in baptism.
6. Augustine, of the fourth century —
"The whole Church practices infant bap-
tism. It was not instituted by Councils, but
was always in use/' " Had not read of one
Catholic or heretic who maintained that bap-
tism ought to be denied to infants." "This
the Church has always maintained/'
88 BAPTISM.
7. Pelagiiis — "Who can be so impious as
to hinder the baptism of infants?"
Here are seven of the leading writers of
the Church from the Apostles down to the
fourth century. What folly to deny all this
evidence because Tertullian asked that bap-
tism be delayed in the case of children and
youths and unmarried people !
One who has studied history a great deal
finds:
1. For four hundred years Tertullian was
the only one asking delay.
2. For the next seven hundred years none
asked for or even delayed baptism.
3. In 1120 a sect arose denying infant
salvation and so, by inference, ruled out in-
fant baptism — a sect soon immersed into
nothingness.
4. In 1522, five years after the Glorious
Reformation, the Anabaptists revived the
error.
And, moreover, on the graves of children
are engraved all the peculiar appellations
of Christians. They are called by the very
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 89
names the Holy Spirit gives to Christians.
They are called holy, believing ; said to re-
pose in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob ; repose in peace among the saints — in
the peace of the Lord Jesus. If Paul dis-
tinguished Christians by such terms as holy,
believing, faithful saints, what did PauFs
converts mean when they wrote these words
on the graves of their little ones ? The cata-
combs of Rome testify to the infant member-
ship of the early churches. Thousands of
children, as well as parents, also died there
for Jesus. Their friends recorded their devo-
tion. An acquaintance visited the catacombs. .
He confirms all that has been given in such
testimony. The very stones of the tombs
cry out against depriving children of their
place in the church of God.
8«-
CHAPTEE XIII.
THE RELATION OF BAPTIZED CHILDEEN TO
THE CHURCH.
THERE is no difficulty in understanding
that children are in the State, with rights
and duties. Why cannot children be "of
the kingdom '^ in the same way ? They are
under the care of the Church, are to be
trained up for Christ. As soon as they have
the qualifications as in the State so in the
Church they are to perform the duty of
members. In the Protestant Church these
qualifications are knowledge and piety. See
Confess, of Faith, page 436, and Meth. Dis-
cipline, page 30. The Churches so practicing
get as good members in the judgment of the
world as those who deny infant baptism.
How wrong is the charge " that piety is
not required,'^ " that these Churches receive
members without conversion.''
90
CHAPTER XIV.
CONCLUSION.
1. It is in accord with apostolic practice to
transfer Baptizo, not to translate it.
2. There is no duty, then, resting upon
the Church to expend millions to introduce
immerse or dip. These words do not respond
to Baptizo in its varied meanings. The effort
to make them has signally failed even with
Baptists. They disuse their own Bible, after
millions expended for it.
3. Baptism for party divisions is misused.
Unity is the Bible idea of "the one bap-
tism." A baptism to be the badge of divi-
sion, is contrary to the essence of Scriptural
baptism, which is " all into one body."
4. When the Pharisees made a handle of
Jesus baptizing more disciples than John,
91
92 BAPTISM.
Jesus retired from Judea into Galilee. This
is opposite to the spirit which crowds upon
the work of others, seeking proselytes to our
mode of administration, to our church, as
more pure for its immersion.
5. If the authority of dictionaries is al-
lowed its force, if the one baptism by the
Spirit is the model, if the example of Apostles
is followed, baptism must be withj not into^
water, and families as well as individuals
must receive baptism.
6. The Church erred by adding exorcism,
oil, white robes, processions and nude wash-
ings to the simple ordinance.
7. There is no consistent agreement among
Baptist writers differing about Baptizo and
the prepositions used with it. Truth is con-
sistent. Error originates disagreement.
8. God's people, — called elect, chosen,
beloved, family, — always embraced children
with covenant privileges. When the New
Testament calls His people by their new
name (Isa. 62 : 2) — Christians — the Church
yet does not lose its identity. When the
CONCLUSION. 93
natural branches are broken off and the
kingdom taken from unbelieving Jews, then
the Gentiles are made the inheritors of the
promises made to Israel. This truth, so often
asserted, secures the rights of children.
9. The Westminster Assembly of 1644,
after hearing the Baptist members two or
three days plead for immersion as one mode
of baptism wisely rejected it.
Date Due
; ~'--
1
f
Theological Semmary-Speer Library
1 1012 01021 2662
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11